纪念伟大的哲学家胡塞尔Word文档下载推荐.docx

1、俄 舍斯托夫In memory of a great philosopher Edmund Husserl1Max Scheler, when I last saw him, two weeks before his death, suddenly asked me: Warum sind Sie mit so einem Ungestm gegen Husserl losgegangen? Husserl himself, when I visited him in Freiburg, introduced me to a group of visiting American profess

2、ors of philosophy with the words:No one has ever attacked me so sharply as he - and thats why we are such close friends. What astonishes one in Husserls words is the clear expression of the disinterestedness which is so rare even in the great philosophers. His first interest was in the truth: and in

3、 the search for truth friendship with ones intellectual opponents is not only possible but essential. This is characteristic of Husserl in the highest degree. But we are concerned for the moment with a different question: What could have been the cause of my harsh attack? To make intelligible a posi

4、tion as difficult and at the same time remarkable as Husserls phenomenology, it seems to me useful to state not only the doctrine itself but also the reasons why I have found it, and still find it, unacceptable. Objections illuminate not only the views of the critic, but also those of the thinker cr

5、iticized.1I first encountered Husserls works thirty years ago,2 at a time when he had published only the Logische Untersuchungen. That book was and is enormously impressive. Among philosophers of the early twentieth century few indeed can rival Husserl in power, boldness, depth, and significance of

6、thought. We did not meet until much later, after I had published two articles on Husserl in the Revue Philosophique.3 I had been invited to Amsterdam to read a paper before a philosophical society. When I got there I was told that Husserl was coming later to read a paper and that he had asked if I c

7、ould await his arrival so that we might meet. Of course, I gladly postponed my departure for a few days. I was pleasantly surprised by Husserls desire to meet an outspoken intellectual opponent: such generosity of spirit is extremely rare.Our first meeting took place at the philosophical society in

8、the evening just before Husserl was to read his paper. At that time, of course, there was no philosophic discussion. Husserl was busy completing his own paper, which lasted for more than two hours and which, incidentally, he read standing, with extraordinary ease, and with the artistry and vigor of

9、a man of forty rather than seventy. Husserl asked the member of the philosophic society in whose home he and his wife were staying （it is the custom in Amsterdam for philosophers who are invited to read papers to stay with members of the philosophic society rather than in hotels） to invite me for di

10、nner the following day. At dinner, of course, there was no talk of philosophy. But immediately after dinner, as soon as we had gone from the dining room into the study, Husserl began to raise philosophic issues, plunging directly in medias res. This was characteristic of him. I remember that when, a

11、 few days later, both of us had dinner with another member of the society, and after dinner our host, a very wealthy man and a passionate bibliophile, began showing Husserl some of his rare books - first editions of the Critique of Pure Reason and Spinozas Ethics - Husserl, to the great chagrin of o

12、ur host, cast only a perfunctory glance at these rare volumes, and in a few moments took me aside and began to talk philosophy.This same concentration upon the questions which absorbed him was apparent on another occasion, when, at the request of Professor Andler, I began to sound Husserl out concer

13、ning his willingness to come to Paris at the invitation of the Sorbonne. He asked me only one question:Do you think that I will find people in Paris who know German and are willing to reflect upon my problems? Husserls complete absorption in philosophy was evident in all of our conversations - first

14、 in Amsterdam, and then in Freiburg and Paris. You were wrong, he began at our first meeting, throwing himself upon me sharply and passionately,You have turned me into a stone statue, raised me onto a lofty pedestal, and then with hammer blows you have shattered this statue to bits. But am I really

15、so lapidary? You dont seem to have noticed what compelled me to formulate in such a radical way the question of the nature of knowledge, modifying the dominant theories of knowledge which previously had satisfied me as much as any other philosopher. The more deeply I probed into the basic problems o

16、f logic, the more I felt that our science, our knowledge, is shaking, tottering. And finally, to my own indescribable horror, I convinced myself that if contemporary philosophy has said the last word about the nature of knowledge, then we have no knowledge. Once, when I was giving a lecture at the university, expounding ideas which I had taken over from our contemporaries, I suddenly felt that I had nothing to